“There is a positive case for Newt”

I am beginning, reluctantly but more firmly as time passes, to lean Mr. Gingrich’s way.  It seems a number of us are:

Gingrich_saveIt is not enough to have a “not” candidate.  There is a positive case for Newt.

As to Newt’s conservatism, one needs to view his almost 35 years in the public eye as a whole.  There are few politicians who have fought as hard over so sustained a period against the false narrative in which an ever-expanding central state is seen as necessary and the decline of the United States is deemed inevitable.

While any of the Republican candidates running can argue against a particular policy or piece of legislation, only Newt has shown the ability to see the historical forest for the trees, to argue for American exceptionalism and greatness founded in history and constitutional principles, not sound bites.  This description by Melanie Phillips seems most fitting:

Faced with the apparently overwhelming power of the left-wing media and intelligentsia, weaponised through their Orwellian hijacking of the language of the centre ground and their career-ending bullying and intimidation of all who dare to disagree, many conservatives have succumbed to the cultural mind-bending without even realising they have been in effect captured by the enemy.

The reason why Newt Gingrich is striking such a chord is principally because he doesrealise all this very well, and so delivers a very clear message and the hope of a return to reality. He gives expression, in other words, to an authentic conservative voice. Gingrich is very smart, a serious thinker and a good communicator.  He is also extremely tough and resilient. He is without doubt a Big Beast in the political jungle — beside whom Mitt Romney, his chief rival, seems a diminished figure….

Desperate times like these need a Big Beast not just to defeat Obama but to defend the free world.

Newt is uniquely capable of communicating a winning conservative vision in a persuasive and forceful manner, as the positive reaction to his debate performances demonstrates.  Obama versus Newt on stage before an audience of tens of millions of voters could lead to a catastrophic defeat for Obama, while Obama versus any other current candidate could have the opposite effect.

I underscored and bolded that last sentence myself because I think it goes to the heart of why I’m left with really no other viable choice than to throw in behind the Newtster.

Yes, there are issues about his past, both personal and political, that bug the crap out of me but in the end, with the choices placed before us, I can’t seem to find sound reasons to go with anyone else.

So yes… today, for the first time, I’m jumping on the Gingrich wagon.

Let’s hope the words he’s been employing during this primary season will match his actions going into the future.

The Rewards of "Smart Diplomacy" and Apology Tours
Awww........
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

    • Anonymous

      What, you guys are all dumping Cain for a little trouble? 

      Gingrich is smart, but now all of his old skeletons will be leaping out of closets.   What, he took $1.5 million from Freddie Mac during the time of the mortgage bubble? He owes how much to Tiffany’s?

      Quit whoring around.  In the end, you’ll all be the brides of Romney.

      • Not dumping Cain, just trying to be a realist. This is all part of the vetting process. I don’t vote in the primary till Super Tuesday. I’m really just watching events unfold for now. I can’t say that I’m not disappointed in Cain’s Libya response though.

        • Anonymous

          Cain and Gingrich are both on book tours.

          • Anonymous

            While Obama golfs

          • Better than him being someplace he could do some damage…

          • retired.military

            Geez get off the book tours mime.  You say that about any candidate that isnt Romney.   If you like Romney so much YOU VOTE FOR HIM.  Obama will be in tears if you do.  If he has lost you he has definitely lost the election.

          • You ever seen a bus tour mime?  It’s incredible, the way they portray riding in a bus, then getting out and playing to the crowd…

            Then again, mimes are pretty creepy anyway, whether they’re in a bus or not.

        • DFTT.

      • Anonymous

        Actually, the 1.6 was taken over a period of ten years. So if you want to bring facts to the table, do so honestly Chico. And always remember, all of us here are ABO in the end. Anyone but Obama. ww

        • Anonymous

          Oh, so it was “only” $160,000 a year at the same time as the mortgage bubble?

          I’ll take $160,000 a year for ten years.

          It will be interesting when the documents showing what kind of “strategic advice” he was giving Freddie Mac come out, unless the documents are “lost.”

          • jim_m

            [Jamie}Gorelick, who left the Clinton Justice Department in 1997 to work for Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, was paid $26,466,834 in salary, bonuses, performance pay and stock options from 1998 to 2003, according to the Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae (2006), conducted by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

            So you are concerned that Newt got paid $1.6 M over ten years and you have no complaints what-so-ever about a Clinton admin apparatchik (with no experience in mortgage finance at all) making $26M over 5 years? 

            Sorry but you lost me in the nuance on that one.

          • Anonymous

            The “nuance,” Genius, is that Gorelick’s not running for President.

          • retired.military

            Bruce

            Since when did that matter to you guys.  Your folks have been running against Bush for the past 6 years and he wasnt even running in the election.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so as long as I’m not running for president I can steal the country blind and you don’t give a damn?

            Moron.

            Sorry if it looks more like you don’t care how much damage a dem does to the country and if a conservative makes even the slightest misstep it is cause for disqualification for any role in public life.

            The point is that the left has ignored dem malfeasance in Fannie Mae for decades and only now when there is money going to a republican do you become interested in minding the finances over there. Worried that someone else got a little bit of cash that your guys missed?

          • He’d no doubt object to you stealing the nation blind, @jim_m723:disqus , but only because you are not a democrat.

          • Anonymous

            No, Jim, Gorelick isn’t relevant to this discussion because Gorelick, unlike Gingrich, isn’t running for president. The conversation wasn’t about random whobodies who have taken money from Fannie or Freddie. It was about which CANDIDATE has, and whether or not that fact will hurt him with voters.

            Who is the moron here?

          • jim_m

            Who is the moron here?

            You, for once again missing my point that you don’t give a rat’s ass about someone who made 16 times more money from Fannie Mae in half the time and you won’t even acknowledge that there is an issue with the fact that dems made huge sums of money from a system that was failing.  You might have noticed that Gorelick made her money right when the system collapsed. 

            Sure it would be nice to know what Newt got paid for, but your double standard is incredible.  You really don’t care that the person in charge was a dem hack who knew nothing about what she was in charge of and she made $26M.  It’s a non issue to you.

            But Newt made $1.6M consulting and you find him guilty of malfeasance without even inquiring about what he did for the money?

            Typical lefty hypocrisy.

          • retired.military

            “The conversation wasn’t about random whobodies who have taken money from Fannie or Freddie. It was about which CANDIDATE has”

            Oh you mean like Obama.  And Frank and Dodd (they are running after all) and Kerry and pelosi.   Are those the ones you mean Bruce or is it just the republican candidates that matter?

          • Really?  There was a question about “which candidate” took Freddie bucks?  Because everyone else understood it was Newt – there was no question about that.  The only questions were about the amount and what he did for it, and whether he was honest about it.

            No one but you wondered, “Who was that masked man with the money?”

            Gorelick was brought up as a relative measure of amounts extracted from these entities, and what was done to earn it.  No one suggested she was running for President except you, in denying it.

            Once again, you can only win a point by setting up a straw man and setting it on fire. 

          • Anonymous

            You guys are too funny. So desperate for an alternative to Mittens you’ll make excuses for a guy who took money to lobby for one of your favorite boogiemen.

            And what IS his excuse, according to Jim? “Jamie Gorelick took more!” Never mind that we were talking about presidential candidates, and that Jamie Gorelick isn’t asking you to vote for her.

            And no, Adjoran, there wasn’t a “question” about who took money from Freddie. But Rick’s post was about why he’s considering supporting Gingrich as opposed to other GOP candidates. He didn’t mention that he might cast a write-in vote for Jamie Gorelick.

          • A Moron Asks:

            Who is the moron here?

            The answer is staring back at him from his own mirror.

          • Anonymous

            God, that’s clever, Wodney. I give up. YOU HAVE DEFEATED ME with your “mirror trick.” Masterful.

          • A Moron exclaims:

            Masterful.

            Only to a low grade moron incapable of pouring piss from a boot with directions written on the heel.

          • retired.military

            You are obviously easily amused Bruce.

          • She would never do that.  She’s found she can do more damage to the country and make lots more money in other ways.

          • My concern is that he first said he only received $300,000, and neglected to say that was PER YEAR and he was under contract with them for five years (over a ten year period).

            My other concern is that he said it was for “internal advice … historical perspective” but Freddie Mac says it was to lobby Republicans. 

            I also have concerns about his current support for ethanol and “green” tax credits and subsidies and, frankly, I have a lot of concerns about a guy who has repeatedly stabbed conservatives in the back over the years.

            McCain never pulled the kind of crap Newt has.  McCain was always up front about what he was doing and his “maverick” status; we knew what to expect.  Newt always delivered the blow from behind, like an assassin.

          • Anonymous

            Why not be equally curious about bundlers, operatives, and former un ion thugs getting millions and billions in loan guarantees? 

          • Anonymous

            Your not worth it

          • Anonymous

            I’ll take $160,000 a year for ten years.

            If you will your considerably cheaper than Nancy Pelosi.

          • Cheap and way over priced at one and the same time!

          • It was $300,000 per year – $25K per month – for five years:  three years at first, a hiatus of five years, two more years paid.  A lot of money for a history lesson.

            But if it makes you feel any better, I wouldn’t support Nancy Pelosi for President either.

      • retired.military

        Newt would be much better than Romney.  of course the only one not better than Romney would be Obama.  Such a low bar. 

  • Anonymous

    I sometimes wonder, if the internet and cable news was around in the 50’s and 60’s, how much ‘stuff’ would have been dug up on Ronald Reagan during his Hollywood days. I’m not sayin’ I’m just sayin’

    • jb

      Its a good point. Enough people might have known about how unprepared and unethical he was, and we might have a had a President who didn’t triple the national debt, negotiate with terrorists, run an unconstitutional war in South America that killed tens of thousands, and use US Marines as weaponless props in Beirut, only to pull them out and run when they were attacked and killed.

      Just saying.

  • He has no history of being a fiscal conservative.  If anything, he ebbs and flows with the prevailing social conservative mantra.  Add on top of that his personal life and the similarities to Clinton…

    I’ll pass.

    • Anonymous

      Although Newt is only my preference if the other choice is Romney (who is only my choice if the other choice is Obama), you are either ignorant or lying to say he has no history of being a fiscal conservative.

      Newt was a significant if not the major driver behind the only entitlement reform in the last 30 years that actually reduced the spending on any program.  His sucess in that alone makes him a better fiscal conservative than Romney.

      • Oh trust me…this whole slate is a complete joke.  I’m almost at the point for voting for Ron Paul, his supporters seem to be the most sane so far (currently running slightly above Penn State Football Boosters).  

        Romney?  It’s simply Obama with better hair. 

        • luaP noR as well qualifies as ABO.  He’s just last on my list.

        • Anonymous

          Well, better hair – that’s something, at least.

    • Anonymous

      I guess you missed the mid 90’s.

    • Gingrich still qualifies as ABO.

      Not my first choice, but entirely acceptable as a replacement for the SCoaMF.

    • Anonymous

      His personal foibles aren’t what we – or at least I – had been lead to believe.  Not so bad. Divorce from first wife – she was in the hospital, she was the one who asked for divorce and conversation – not on her deathbed – alive today, as a matter of fact. She has always tried to counteract the horrid stories that were made up about him back then.

      But his ego scares me. He showed a tendency to inflate when he thought he could get away with inflating.  Remember the Airforce One tantrum?

      But, at the end of the day, he remains the consummate middle-of-the-road Republican with tons of smarts, oodles of speaking ability, a good sense of timing – all of his “moderator, heal thyself” retorts were just incredibly well-timed – lots of very pertinent experience, and some good, clear ideas for the present.

      So, I knew I’d be voting for him as soon as he entered the race. Let’s just see if he can avoid any tantrums this time.

  • Anonymous

    The GOP are running out of time (and candidates) to find their ABM, anyone but Mitt candidate, before the music ends. At least Newt will be entertaining. So  it may boil down to trice-married Newt (not at once), and his call to lead the GOP into wresting  a threatened America…, from the throes of secularism  and  returning it  to reality  as Rick Rice says.  Would that reality, include Newt’s penchant for buying luxurious diamonds on credit from Tiffanys´? What is more American than that?

    Newt: “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re (his grandchildren) my age, they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”
    There is genius in Newt : no other human had located the secular humanist wing of radical Islam before.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, Steve… is your problem with Newt’s jewelry that he paid for it himself, and didn’t stick the taxpayer with the bill? Like Obama’s frequent vacations? And his frequent marriages… would you prefer that he pulled a Clinton and stayed married while being a serial philanderer?

      And while the secular humanists and militant Muslims are a strange team, look up “Queers For Palestine,” or at who tends to side with radical Muslims and against Christians in American courts. They’re already on their side in a lot of ways.

      J.

      • I’ll pass on anyone who’s primary concern is the evolution of America into a “Secular Atheist Country”.  There are many other more worldy concerns than church attendance percentages in 2067.

        • If you don’t believe the ideological underpinnings for the constitution, bill of rights, and American jurisprudence to be important, that’s your prerogative. I’m sticking with rights that are “unalienable” because they are “endowed by our creator” rather than privileges given by whim of the state.

          • Maybe I missed that part in Birth of a Nation where Charlton Heston climbed up on Independence Hall to receive the Bill of Rights , but it was the people who wrote the DoI and Constitution who inferred those rights as “endowed by our creator”.  God/Jesus/Etc didn’t actually appear and say “hey guys, you should have this…”.

          • “Maybe I missed that part in Birth of a Nation…”

            Say no more.

          • Wrong movie…my bad. Could edit, but yup, that was bad.

            Anyhow, shall we pick something different?  Sure.

            Maybe I missed that part in my history book where Charlton Heston climbed up on Independence Hall to receive the Bill of Rights , but it was the people who wrote the DoI and Constitution who inferred those rights as “endowed by our creator”.  God/Jesus/Etc didn’t actually appear and say “hey guys, you should have this…”.

          • Anonymous

            Your grasp of fundamental political philosophy is astonishingly shallow. Start here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Rights_theory

          • Wow…personal insults as opposed to rational discourse.  Wheeee!

          • As insults, personal and otherwise go, that was more of an [accurate] assessment of demonstrated competence on the subject of the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

            Declaration of Independence

            When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
            people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
            another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
            equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle
            them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
            should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
            equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
            Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
            Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
            among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
            –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
            ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
            institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
            organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
            effect their Safety and Happiness.

            The Founding Fathers very carefully stipulated that the rights of men descend from the creator, as that which the creator has endowed is not subject to abridgement by mortal man and the institutions of man.

          • jim_m

            Stop confusing Brian with facts.

          • No.

          • How about “stop being an assbag”? 

          • What say you pay someone for a clue with handles?

          • Very nice…what’s next, whip it out and see who’s longer?

            Anyhow, back to civil discourse.  If we can have that….

            The Founding Fathers very carefully stipulated that the rights of men descend from the creator, as that which the creator has endowed is not subject to abridgement by mortal man and the institutions of man.

            See, this is something they said was bestowed on them.  A man, saying that God said “hey, you are owed this…”.  Yes, I know we have a government rooted in judeo-christian philosophy.  It also clearly maintains the separation between Church and State.  Why?  To prevent the government from infringing in religion and to prevent religion infringing upon government.  We do far better as a people when we take sacred matters and bestow those values upon our families, and not onto others via government.  A tyranny of happy church-going folk is still a tyranny.  

            Now, if this still means my (as you put it) grasp of fundamental political philosophy is astonishingly shallow.” then I put it upon you to prove me wrong otherwise.  The only restriction I put upon your argument is to not say “The Bible Tells Me So” because we can have that debate in another thread if you wish.

          • You really should have fled the field after your “Birth of a Nation” gaff.

            If you really want to keep digging…

          • Fled?  Nice….no, I prefer to stick around.

            Once again, please tell me where I am wrong.  I’m guessing you can’t since #1 Jefferson didn’t receive the Declaration of independence on Mount Sinai and #2 the reference to “rights endowed by their creator” is man-made.

            Don’t get me wrong, I understand and fully support that rights are “rights”, not privileges bestowed upon by the government or the governed.  

          • It seems you missed quite a bit, doesn’t it?  Was your “history book” one issued by public schools and edited by tenured apparatchiks?

          • Once again, snide remarks as opposed to facts and civil discourse.  

          • Kinda shows how serious he is there, doesn’t it?

    • Anonymous

      Actually I agree and apparently the Tea Party does also. Steve, your liberal sail has sailed. Your guy demonstrated how inexperienced he is and how to lead from behind. His wife has never been proud of America until 2008. Obama goes around the world putting america down. Yesterday we were called lazy but then he stops the pipeline that would have put thousands of people to work. And through all this, what is Steve worried about? A tiffany ring. That sums uup a liberal. “I want. I want. If I can’t you can’t”  ww

    • Anonymous

      Lucky you Steve you get Obama and 9% unemployment, Solydra, Fast and Furious, the Penn pipeline and god knows what else, good luck with that….

    • Anonymous

      Steve and the rest of the libtards here have conveniently forgotten the high quality of the democratic field just three years ago.

      Lets recap shall we?
      Hillary Clinton – the anointed one, lets just refer to her as the Mitt Romney of her day.
      Joe Biden – Too Easy.
      Chris Dodd – Captain Controversy. Anyone remember Country Wide? AIG? Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac didn’t seem to bother the libs much back then.
      Mike Gravel – Who?
      Dennis Kucinich – Kind of like a liberal Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman rolled into big ball of crazy.
      Bill Richardson – Governer of New Mexico. I hear he can see Old Mexico from his backyard 🙂

      And lets not forget our eventual pesident and nobel peace prize winner, Barack Obama, who somehow managed to win despite having accomplished even less than any of the rest the field.

      • Nutty as he is, I’d almost rather have Kucinich.  At least his wife is hot.

  • Anonymous

    Based on his debate performances, we know Newt is intelligent and knows his stuff.
    Put that together with his disdain for the MSM idiots and his penchant for calling them out on their stupid questions and no wonder his poll numbers are rising.

    I’ll also predict that if Newt does win the nomination, Obama will not debate him.

    • He’ll debate him.  But it will be so vanilla that it won’t be worth watching.  

      • Anonymous

        Brian are you purposely being obtuse? Obama has a record now. He cannot just speak platitudes. He cannot defend his record. Newt has a record too. Welfare reform, balanced budget, Contract with America. The comparison will be stark. We will see a true intellect versus a wanna be playa. But in the final analysis it will be ABO. Anyone but Obama. ww

        • You forget who runs these debates.  Do you really think CNN/MSNBC/FOX are going to run an issues ran debate?

          My expectation levels for the MSM are similar to government and business.  Status quo = consistent revenue.

          • Anonymous

            Have you not noticed that Newt has a knack of moving the debate in the direction he wants no matter who’s running it. Obama might be able to avoid Charlie Gibson he won’t be able to ignore Newt not and get away with it.

          • You keep forgetting the part “…..and with that, we’ll be right back…”

          • Oysteria

            Oh ye of little faith.  Nothing would please me more than seeing a debate between Gingrich and Obama.  I don’t think any of these so-called moderators can handle it.  And the public will see right through their partisanship.  They’ve become more and more aware of it over the past few years.

          • You have far too much faith in Newt and far too little belief in the power of the off switch.

        • herddog505

          Wild_WillieObama has a record now. He cannot just speak platitudes. He cannot defend his record. Newt has a record too. Welfare reform, balanced budget, Contract with America. The comparison will be stark.

          In a sane, normal world, I would agree: Barry has a record and it’s bloody awful.  That’s why, according to DCNN, he’s planning to run as a Washington outsider.  Yep, come November ’12, Barry will have had NOTHING to do with the previous four years.  It’ll be the brave reformer who tried so hard to take on the entrenched interests of DC, the rich lobbyists, the GOP obstructionists, the liars of Fox News and talk radio.  HE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT!  HE NEEDS FOUR MORE YEARS TO CLEAN THINGS UP!

          And MiniTru will be with him all the way.  It won’t be Solyndra, Fast and Furious, 9% unemployment, a credit downgrade, and a $15T debt.  It’ll be what Newt said yesterday that was taken out of context, or how ridiculous he was made to look on Saturday Night live or by Jon Stewart, or what Newt said or did twenty years ago.

          Barry gets a pass.  Republicans get a microscope up the kazoo.  Barry doesn’t have a record.  Republicans ALWAYS have a record, even if it has to be made up.

          • Again, the status quo and crony media coverage that will decide this election.  All of this leads towards “expected revenues”.

          • herddog505

            Well, they will certainly try to decide the election.  However, if they had the power to unequivocally do so, we’d have had President Kerry if not President Gore.

          • Anonymous

            EXACTLY!

          • We almost did…hell there are people still bitching about Florida a decade later.

            The thing that killed Kerry was the bunny suit photo at NASA (similar to Dukakis’ tank moment) and the Swift Boat outpouring.

          • jim_m

            And there was that bit where he betrayed his country and threw all Vietnam vets under the bus with a bunch of lies about rape, torture and mass murder.

          • Anonymous

            Yes I seem to remember something about his Swift Boat buddies lining up to object to Kerry as a leader. That was driven by the alternative media and the MSM worked over time trying to discredit them…. how did that work out

      • Anonymous

        Lol.

        At first I thought you were being rude. Now I have to conclude that you don’t even know who Newt Gingrich is.

  • herddog505

    Newt is a bright man.

    He also has a pretty erratic moral compass.  I don’t say that he’s a lib, but sitting on the couch with SanFran Nan yapping about global warming speaks volumes about how… um… flexible his values are.

    Newt might make a very good vice president in the Cheney mould to a tough-minded president.  He would make an excellent legislation czar.  He would be a better president than Barry simply because almost ANYBODY would be better.

    But I do not support him.

  • The Case for Newt Gingrich: He is not Barrack Hussein Obama.

    Should he get the nomination, I will most assuredly vote for him.  Then again, the same is true for luaP noR should he somehow get nominated.

    • Won’t diagree with you much there – but I’d need to dig out my old gas mask before voting if noR gets it.

  • Bob Gilkison

    You can never have a discussion on this forum without the absurdly named Commander-Chico (my guess is that he was never even been a private) jumping in with his BS. My grandkinds call me Captain Bob.  I earned it.  Where did you get your cute  title Chico?  What a joke–a stale one.

    It is fascinating that the Newt detractors go back 20 or 30 years to dredge up their muck, while ignoring that his ideas are fresh and forward looking.  Other people like to say that he is not conservative enough.  No one can predict what issues a President will face, or what compromises he may have to make to protect the interests of the country.  Newt understands the world, and  he understands and reveres the philosophical  underpinnings of our Republic.  He believes in our Constitutional Republic form of government. Those are the the litmus tests, and the only litmus tests, for me.

    Meanwhile Obama mouths and adheres to the outdated philosophy of Statist socialism and class conflict.  Obama leads us into  the wilderness in foreign affairs, where our friends despair and our enemies howl with glee.  Obama is diminishing America at a time, and in a world, in which predatory forces prowl for the weak and the uncertain.

    Someone has got to lead this country out of the wilderness.  Like others I wrote Newt off because I thought he was unelectable, and yesterday’s news.  Now, I am not at all sure he is not electable, and I see him as today’s headline.

    • Jay

      His problems:

      – Served wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying from cancer
      – $300K fine for ethics violation by misusing tax exempt foundations for political gain
      – “Children of welfare should be taken away to orphanages”
      – Wanted to impeach Clinton but cheated on his wife with a staffer (his third wife now)
      – Alleges class warfare against Obama but can ring up a $500K tab at Tiffany’s
      – Monthly retainer with Freddie Mac was $25K to $50K (1999 – 2002)
      – Claimed not to be a lobbyist for Freddie, but on a 2 year retainer for a total of $600K
      – Criticizes Chris Dodd for his Countrywide deal, saying “we should go after the politicians who have been at the heart of this sickness which is weakening the country”
      – Hired by Freddie to “build bridges with Capital Hill conservatives to sell the mortgage company’s public-private structure to conservatives”

      Are you sure he’s what you want to elect?

      • Jay informs us of Newt’s liabilities:

        – Served wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying from cancer

        Their daughter denies this happened.

        – Wanted to impeach Clinton but cheated on his wife with a staffer (his third wife now)

        Impeached (by the House), though failed to convict (in the Senate, where not one Senator reviewed the actual evidence), William Jefferson Clinton for Perjury, which charge he eventually settled by surrendering his law licenses (Arkansas and Federal Bars) rather than face a disciplinary hearing for perjury.  Also settled out of court with Paula Jones on her sexual harassment suit.

        – Alleges class warfare against Obama but can ring up a $500K tab at Tiffany’s

        What private citizen Gingrich does with his money is really his affair, is it not?  What Obama spends on government paid vacations (way more than $500,000 at this point) is a public issue.

        – Monthly retainer with Freddie Mac was $25K to $50K (1999 – 2002)

        Compare to Raines and Gorelick and get back to us…

        – Claimed not to be a lobbyist for Freddie, but on a 2 year retainer for a total of $600K

        Your proof that Gingrich lobbied Congress on behalf of Freddie?

        And you know, I don’t especially like Newt, and he ranks just barely ahead of luaP noR (and Jay) in my estimation…

        …but he’s still not named Barrack Hussein Obama and thus eminently acceptable!

        • Jay

          Their daughter denies this happened.
          So does Newt 30 years later.  But the ethics on the next question…

          Impeached (by the House), though failed to convict (in the Senate, where not one Senator reviewed the actual evidence), William Jefferson Clinton for Perjury, which charge he eventually settled by surrendering his law licenses (Arkansas and Federal Bars) rather than face a disciplinary hearing for perjury.  Also settled out of court with Paula Jones on her sexual harassment suit.

           Quite familiar with the Ken Starr Report, thank you.  But Newt’s actions reek of hypocrisy.  And let’s not forget this is a look at a man’s personal life where Newt was leading the charge for implicating Clinton.

          What private citizen Gingrich does with his money is really his affair, is it not?  What Obama spends on government paid vacations (way more than $500,000 at this point) is a public issue.

          Kind of hard to look at either of them in a good light when they’re both doing the same thing: misusing taxpayer money.

          Compare to Raines and Gorelick and get back to us…

          Noted, but they’re not running for President and showing how they corrupted the system, are they?

          Your proof that Gingrich lobbied Congress on behalf of Freddie?

          Link 1

          Link 2

          And you know, I don’t especially like Newt, and he ranks just barely ahead of luaP noR (and Jay) in my estimation…

          As I said below: Go right ahead.  A guy that says he wants defense to be 4x the current defense budget of 1987 isn’t necessarily the guy you want being the President.  Oh, and I’m not the biggest fan of Paul either.  *Thumbs up*

          • Get back to us on the lobbyist angle when you have named sources on the record.

            Fanny and Freddie have been captives of the Democrats so long that both places are lousy with apparatchiks.

          • Jay

            I gave you two links from Bloomberg and Huffington Post where Freddie Mac officials explicitly stated Gingrich endorsed their policies.  Since JayTea put up a new link, I’ll respond more there.

          • Neither of your links goes back to Named Sources, which you would know if you’d bothered to read them and follow the embedded links.

          • Jay

            Nice edit on your other post.  I also find it odd that you’re asking for named sources.  People in Freddie probably want to stay employed by Freddie on condition of anonymity.

          • You should not find it odd that anyone should require named sources given all the backbiting going on.

            If Freddie has contractual terms which forbid disclosure to the press, then the Freddie employees should be honoring the terms of their contracts.

          • Jay

            Can’t say much on that.  Somebody broke ranks and decided to remain anonymous.  When asked on Fox, Newt says he has an NDA on that information.  Something’s not adding up.  I don’t quite know who to believe, but given his other behavior, Newt’s is taken with a grain of salt.

          • Your level of comfort with un-named sources seems to be closely correlated to whose ox is being gored.

          • Jay

            When noticing that Obama does nothing to protect whistleblowing and everything to persecute “sources”, it comes with the territory.

        • Anonymous

          Can someone please explain to me why you need to divorce a dying woman?

          • Seeing she’s still alive 29 years later, you might want to re-examine the issue.

        • Anonymous

          I just noticed this comment of yours, Rodney. Looks like we both had the same idea towards Jay’s laundry list…

          I hope he reads both our responses.

          J.

  • Jay

    If you guys are truly picking NEWT. GINGRICH. as better than Romney, I only have a few words:

    “Go right ahead”

    That’s the epitome of an insane vote.  I mean, really?  You have a guy that says on national TV “Covert Ops, all deniable” in regards to Iran?  Newsflash, if you want Ops to be covertDON’T TALK ABOUT THEM.  I might as well write in Jack Abramoff if I have to vote for Newt.

    • Covert ops are always deniable.

      And I’d vote for a concerete block before I’d vote for Obama.  Doesn’t mean I’d want to see one running.  I’d much rather try to find a decent, workable candidate.

      A Perfect cadidate?  Perfect – doesn’t exist.  If you’re looking for a ‘perfect’ candidate, you’ve got to figure out what your criteria are, and ruthlessly discard anyone that fails to fit your template.  Romney’s been anointed as the ‘Perfect’ candidate by the media – at least until he gets the nod at which point you’ll see them tear into him like a starving dog with a roast turkey.  

      There are no candidates out there who do NOT have flaws.    There are very few competent polymaths who actually run for office.  There isn’t a single candidate out there who doesn’t have gaps in their knowledge, who won’t occasionally bobble an answer, who won’t – if elected – have to call in experts in some subject or another. 

      But “American Idol: Presidential Edition” allows no flaws or weaknesses to show on stage. We’re supposed to see any flaw whatsoever as being cause to chop off their heads.

      And in the end (of the primary process) we’ll have just one left. The one the fix was in for in the first place.

      Then the media will proceed to flay Romney. Slowly. Painfully. And they’ll be orgasmically gleeful in pointing out just how horrible, flawed, and inexperienced he is. How DARE we think he could EVER be a remotely competent President! Just re-elect Obama, and everything will get fixed, everything will be fine. Trust their pundits, they’re completely impartial with no axes to grind. At all…

      Hold out for the candidate you want, Jay.  That’s fine – that’s what you’re supposed to do.  But if none of them fit your perfect template, then please – by all that’s good and holy, or even tolerable and secular, don’t vote for Obama.

      • Jay

        I’m not really asking for a perfect candidate.  Romney can’t stand for anything except the money that flows to him.  I’ve ALWAYS been critical of Perry as Governor of Texas.  Sure, he has a few good points such as the “start from zero” approach to the budget, but the state has been worse off.  The two that I would vote for are the ones the GOP are least likely to allow on the center stage since they’re against the corruption.

        What truly dismays me is how the entire process seems to destroy the voting process by shepherding everyone into a choice between two nonviable candidates.

        Let’s be realistic:
        Obama has been a politician first.  He says and does anything for money for campaigns.  He advocated change, but then ran with the Hillary Clinton playbook of reform.

        He inherited Gitmo and now it’s the most expensive prison of the US, where rights are considered privileges.

        He allows the Secure Communities program which is deporting 400K people a year so that ICE can have more appropriated funds.

        Everything that’s wrong I can’t publish here, but it’s a laundry list of problems in technology, human rights advocacy, and corruption.

        But honestly, if the guy he’s running against is “Obama only Republican” what the hell is the point?  To paraphrase: “It’s like the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich”

  • Gingrich’s enthusiastic support for cap-‘n’-tax up until 2009, his enduring support for ethanol subsidies and “green” subsidies and tax credits, attacking conservatives for supporting Hoffman in the NY-23 special election and endorsing Dede Scuzzyfuzzy who in turn endorsed the Democrat over Hoffman, and many other questionable decisions, along with his lack of administrative experience, make me quite reluctant to consider him seriously.

    The Pelosi couch thing, too.  Oh, sure, NOW he admits it was stupid to do, but he did it, rejected conservative objections with rude dismissal at the time, and probably only believes it was a mistake because of the political consequences. 

    • Once again, Newt’s fiscal conservative flag gets thrown in the laundry when he deems necessary.  But don’t you dare question others on this topic.  Because that means you are a damn liberal hippie who’s posting from Occupy Latrine!  🙂

  • OOps.  Reason has chimed in on the Newt Debate.

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/17/the-case-against-newt-gingrich

  • Pingback: Sticking Up For Newt | Wizbang()

  • For the Education of a historically ignorant commenter who started by opining:

    Maybe I missed that part in Birth of a Nation where Charlton Heston
    climbed up on Independence Hall to receive the Bill of Rights , but it
    was the people who wrote the DoI and Constitution who inferred those
    rights as “endowed by our creator”[sic].  God/Jesus/Etc[sic] didn’t actually
    appear and say “hey guys, you should have this…”. 1

    Which tells us that:

    1.  Our disputant can’t differentiate between the Miracle in Philadelphia and the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.

    2.  Our disputant seems to take his historical “education” from motion pictures.

    3.  Our disputant can’t be bothered to accurately quote the Declaration of Independence, which actually reads, in pertinent part: “that they [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”

    4.  Our disputant holds that The Creator only reveals himself to the hearts and minds of his followers via physical manifestation.

    We’ll move on to his other howling examples of ignorance in additional comments later.

    • Hi Rodney.  

      Wow, that’s all I can say is wow.  I must have really gotten under your skin.  I’ll try to answer these point by point.  I’ll also try to keep it civil (unlike…well…you).#1.  Now, like most politicians, I could have clicked “edit” and fixed the quote.  But I didn’t.  I screwed up, and I left it out there for others to see.  Yup, mea culpa.  Bad Brian, no donut for me.

      #2. I didn’t know that a discussion on a blog website required my credentials.  Do you need a note from my history teachers?  

      #3. Rodney can’t seem to understand that I do not dispute what is written on the Declaration of independence, but that is was not physically written by God.  No matter how much you want it to be, the DoI (and other texts) are written by people.  

      #4. Rodney does not seem to understand that while the Lord moves in mysterious ways, it is each person’s personal voyage with the Lord that matters.  And not the way you interpret “God’s will” unto others.

      I don’t know if it was you plan to be the Jesus Bully of Wizbang, but congrats, I think you did it.  

      • @yahoo-Q6DL245AVVGQXIOZ3CLCINRIWY:disqus , what?  You’re still here?

        Very well then.

        Our illiberally mis-educated disputant replies with:

        Wow, that’s all I can say is wow.

        And yet, having announced that “Wow” is all you can say, you carry on…

        I must have really gotten under your
        skin.

        Not really, but as long as you continue to dig I’ll be glad to comment upon the hole which you have dug yourself into.

        I’ll try to answer these point by point.

        And start with a FAIL!

        I’ll also try to keep
        it civil (unlike…well…you).

        You have elected to take umbrage for being corrected.  I wish you the joy of that umbrage and will help you continue to enjoy it for as long as your persist in digging your hole.

        #1.  Now, like most politicians, I could
        have clicked “edit” and fixed the quote.  But I didn’t.  I screwed up,
        and I left it out there for others to see.  Yup, mea culpa.  Bad Brian,
        no donut for me.

        Or you could have admitted your error and moved on to a new subject or thread.  Instead you set yourself to digging.  But back to the point.  Why is it that you confuse the founding of the KKK with the founding of the United States of America?

        My second point:

        Our disputant seems to take his historical “education” from motion pictures.

        Is an observation of observed behavior, which was somehow twisted in the “mind” of Brian to become:

        I didn’t know that a discussion on a blog website required my credentials.  Do you need a note from my history teachers?

        Far from it.  We’d like to see you actually demonstrate an understanding or our system of government, the founding of that system, and the political philosophy of those who created it that’s less than a mile wide, more than an inch deep, and quite a bit less error filled.

        My third point:

        Our disputant can’t be bothered to accurately quote the Declaration of
        Independence, which actually reads, in pertinent part: “that they [all
        men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”

        was a criticism of your inability to accurately quote material, which somehow was again twisted in your mind to become:

        Rodney can’t seem to understand that I do not dispute what is written on
        the Declaration of independence, but that is was not physically written
        by God.

        No, you just can’t accurately quote from it.  Your continuation:

        No matter how much you want it to be, the DoI (and other texts) are written by people.

        Is a straw man.  I have not claimed that the Declaration of Independence was authored by the hand of the Creator.  Nor has anyone else on this thread so asserted.  You have created and destroyed an argument of your own making.

        My fourth point was to Divine Inspiration:

        Our disputant holds that The Creator only reveals himself to the hearts and minds of his followers via physical manifestation.

        Specifically, the straw man argument that the Creator did not physically descend and deliver the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States (and Bill of Rights) from his own hand.  Our disputant it seems is self qualified to dictate to the Creator how he may communicate with and inspire his adherents.

        Rodney does not seem to understand that while the Lord moves in
        mysterious ways, it is each person’s personal voyage with the Lord that
        matters.  And not the way you interpret “God’s will” unto others.

        Such a combination of Hubris and Ignorance is seldom seen, though it does bring with it a certain dark humor!

        You really can stop digging any old time now…

        • Wow Rodney, I’m touched.  Here we go.

          Or you could have admitted your error and moved on to a new subject or thread. 

          I LOVE this statement.  This captures your debating skills perfectly.

          1.  Find something wrong with what they said.
          2. Harp on it until they go away.

          Jesus Bully, Take Two.

          Instead you set yourself to digging.  But back to the point.  Why is it that you confuse the founding of the KKK with the founding of the United States of America?

          I like a challenge…and i would have been easy to walk away from this.  But that’s not me.  So once again, I was using a movie metaphor and thought of a really horrendous movie title while using the mental imagery of Charlton Heston standing on top of Independence Hall as God threw down the Declaration of Independence.  If you want to keep harping on that, by all means do so.  You have already sniped at my grammar as well.  Any other non-topical items you wish to rant about?

          Far from it.  We’d like to see you actually demonstrate an understanding or our system of government, the founding of that system, and the political philosophy of those who created it that’s less than a mile wide, more than an inch deep, and quite a bit less error filled.

          What was “error filled”?  See, you convince yourself that my one mistake on a movie title means that any further arguments I make are false.  How very Obamaian of you….

          I have not claimed that the Declaration of Independence was authored by the hand of the Creator.  Nor has anyone else on this thread so asserted.  You have created and destroyed an argument of your own making.

          No, you keep inferring that “divine will” empowered those words (might I add…over and over).   Oh wait…here is comes again! 

          Specifically, the straw man argument that the Creator did not physically descend and deliver the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States (and Bill of Rights) from his own hand.  Our disputant it seems is self qualified to dictate to the Creator how he may communicate with and inspire his adherents.

          BINGO!  Thank you for making my point.  You HAVE once again said that the hand of God was involved “communicate with and inspire his adherents” with the creation of the DoI.  Boy, this was easy…

          The problem with the entire involvement of God inside of our government is that God is an unknown.  Yes, He is.  Doesn’t matter which version of the Bible you pull out.  Only YOU can describe YOUR relationship with God.  And it’s not very often that He decides to infer his will unto others via one of us corpulent beings.  We as a species tend to think that we’re doing “God’s will when in fact, we’re just doing what we want because of some internal strife or crappy misinterpretation.

          We can only infer what His will is in each of us.  To infer your interpretation of God’s will unto others is where problems begin.

          • Oh, and one more point (that Rodney made in another thread).

            I am not inferring what God can do.  I am inferring that we (us corpulent ones) often interpret “His Divine Guidance” way too often in our mundane (and sometimes really stupid) plans.  And that wrapping a really good idea around “divine will” doesn’t make it any more special.

          • Talking to one’s self is a sign of serious psychosis.

          • Thank you for clarifying what you are really about Rodney.  For you, it seems it is not about rational discussion or debate.  It’s about smearing someone until they leave and you claim the moral high ground.

            Obama’s campaign will probably want someone like you for this election season.

          • Anonymous

            This is an epic thread.

          • Have mercy, chicka.  He’s digging so deep that your endorsement will surely bury him in fecal matter.

          • Anonymous

            C’mon, this is great entertainment.

          • I’m glad I’ve made your day.  However, civil debate is still lacking in this thread.  Still awaiting it’s return…

  • Since latest challenged commenter continues to dig…

    Part II

    In which @Jeff_Blogworthy:disqus (FKA Jeff Blogworthy) responded to our challenged commenter’s Birth of a Nation howler with:

    “Maybe I missed that part in Birth of a Nation…”

    Say no more.

    Which was both mild criticism of an incredibly telling gaff and sound advice.  Being clue challenged, our commenter returned with:

    Wrong movie…my bad. Could edit, but yup, that was bad.

    Anyhow, shall we pick something different?  Sure.

    Maybe I missed that part in my history book
    where Charlton Heston climbed up on Independence Hall to receive the
    Bill of Rights , but it was the people who wrote the DoI and
    Constitution who inferred those rights as “endowed by our creator”.
     God/Jesus/Etc didn’t actually appear and say “hey guys, you should have
    this…”.

    Where to begin?

    Let’s start from the top.

    Wrong movie…my bad.

    Bad in the sense that gang rape is a mild social aberration, perhaps.  That deserves to be modified, at the very least, by “cringingly.”

    Could edit, but yup, that was bad.

    And such editing would have made it yet worse, but not content to abandon this rapidly expanding hole…

    Maybe I missed that part in my history book
    where Charlton Heston climbed up on Independence Hall to receive the
    Bill of Rights , but it was the people who wrote the DoI and
    Constitution who inferred those rights as “endowed by our creator”.
     God/Jesus/Etc didn’t actually appear and say “hey guys, you should have
    this…”.

    Which history book would that be?

    And then right back to the movie analogy…  Setting up the strawman that he proceeds to batter ad nauseum.

    Part III will no doubt follow shortly after our latest challenged commenter returns to beat upon the deceased equine of his probity.

    • Bad in the sense that gang rape is a mild social aberration, perhaps.  That deserves to be modified, at the very least, by “cringingly.”

      Wow, still on the wrong movie title kick aren’t we.  

      (sarcasm)Thank you for equating “gang rape” to my movie title gaffe.  Moral high-ground ceded to you (/sarcasm)

      Which history book would that be?

      Any history book.  I have yet to see one that shows the “hand/spirit/bowel movement” of God involved in the creation of the Declaration of Independence.  Please cite/reference one that does.

      The movie analogy was a “joke” in case you didn’t catch it.    .  

      • Just keep digging there!

        • Please, enlighten me, how am I still “digging”?

          If anything your comparison of my movie gaffe to “gang rape” is…interesting.  And similar.

  • jb

    Newt is definitely on the list next to flame out. As an outside observer to GOP politics, I just don’t see him doing better than Romney in the primaries OR the general.

    But we’ll see.

  • Pingback: Swinging Vote | Daily Pundit()